AAFitz wrote:Well, no doubt you are partially right and obviously there are many underlying reasons why individuals didn't vote for him, and a rich Gordon Gecko was definitely among them., but to discount that many disliked the conservatism, which certainly influenced the vote is far too speculative. In any case, I know that was one of the main reasons I didn't vote for him, and while, suggesting that others think like I do, would be even more speculative, its at least possible.

In any case, its fairly presumptive, to say he couldn't have swung it the other way, with a few changes along the way, or mores specifically, not making so many damn changes, and just sticking with his past moderate policies, that clearly are a large part of his success in life to this point.

This Republican will tell you why she didn't vote for Romney.

1) His views on many things swung North, South, East, West, depending on who was asking. - Agreed, but President Obama is largely similar in this respect.2) His claim of balancing the Olympics budget, while true, was only true because he was able to borrow from the Federal government, which meant that if he'd been president when he had to balance the Olympics budget, he would not have been able to borrow from the Federal government to do so, so would have failed to balance that budget - because the Fed had to borrow the money, increasing the deficit, in order to loan him the money he needed to succeed. And he wants to deny that type of thing to anyone else.Agreed.3) He picked an anti-choice running mate.I think you mean pro-life, but agreed.4) His numbers for his "cap the deductions" plan did not add up. He knew they didn't add up, because if they had, he wouldn't have kept telling folks to pick a number to set as the cap, he would himself have known what that number needed to be.Incorrect. He didn't have numbers. President Obama also didn't have numbers or any details, as I've shown in other threads.5) He refused to reveal his taxes; no other candidate for any office has ever been so secretive about whether he did or did not pay appropriate US taxes.He did reveal his tax returns.6) While he made a lot of money in his ventures, his ventures lost over 20,000 American jobs, so his claim to know how to create jobs was bogus.Also incorrect. Despite the DCCC's rhetoric to the contrary, multiple fact-checking websites proved this is false.7) His "fix" to Medicare wouldn't fix the part that was broken. Today's retirees, part of the baby boomers, are what's busted that bank, but his (Ryan's) "fix" would not reduce any benefits to any baby boomer. Instead, it would kill medicare for everyone after the baby boomers.Agreed, but Medicare is also killed by the Affordable Care Act.In all, these things added up to He was the type who would say anything, ANYTHING, to get elected, even if it was not true.Which leads to 9) and then he'd deny saying what he had said.10) He and most (other) Republicans refuse to acknowledge that what worked for Reagan when Reagan lowered "wealthy tax" rates from 70% to a lower number; then realized he'd gone too far and had to raise them up a little - wouldn't work now that "wealthy tax" rates are already lower than the number Reagan had realized was "too low" for the United States' economic health.

So, the only "social issue" part of this was the anti-choice Ryan. It's important to me, as a pro-choice Republican, but it's not "the" most important thing to me. Five through Nine of my list were the main reasons I chose not to vote for him. If he'd said, "Would I lie to you?" I'd have to say, "Yes you did!"

No. I meant anti-choice. See, how is it "pro life" if, for example, the mother's life is at stake if she bore the child? (Ryan openly stated he saw no reason to make except for life of mother, and many feel that way.)How is it "pro life" if, for example, once the child is born no one wants to pay for that child's WELFARE (something that the Republican campaign openly dissed as an improper entitlement).How is it "pro life" if so many of those so-called pro-lifers think it's perfectly fine to bomb clinics because the clinic performs perfectly legal procedures that that person just doesn't happen to agree with?

Plus, while I'm pro-choice, that doesn't mean I "want" people to have abortions. I'd prefer they make other choices. But in the end, the choice should remain between the woman and whatever God she believes in. So I'm pro-choice, not anti-life, while so-called pro-choicers are anti-choice much more than they are pro-life.

4) His numbers for his "cap the deductions" plan did not add up. He knew they didn't add up, because if they had, he wouldn't have kept telling folks to pick a number to set as the cap, he would himself have known what that number needed to be.

thegreekdog wrote:Incorrect. He didn't have numbers. President Obama also didn't have numbers or any details, as I've shown in other threads.

You make half my point: he didn't have numbers, which means he COULD NOT confirm that he could "create 12 million jobs" like his ads kept spouting. He also brought up numbers in the debates; it's just, he brought up several different percentages and told the audience to pick one (he used some same, some different numbers in various interviews, always telling audience to pick one but continuing to claim that the numbers meant he'd create 12 million jobs.)

Obama did have numbers and details, he's had them, it's just that to get there he wants to raise some taxes so the Republicans refuse his numbers.

5) He refused to reveal his taxes; no other candidate for any office has ever been so secretive about whether he did or did not pay appropriate US taxes.

thegreekdog wrote:He did reveal his tax returns.

1 year, then another year, not the ten years everyone else reveals.

6) While he made a lot of money in his ventures, his ventures lost over 20,000 American jobs, so his claim to know how to create jobs was bogus.

Other multiple fact-checking websites proved that his company's ventures costing over 20,000 American jobs, (while netting him and his cohorts hundreds of millions at the expense of several companies who ended up footing the bills for as long as they could before bankrupting and closing) is true.

7) His "fix" to Medicare wouldn't fix the part that was broken. Today's retirees, part of the baby boomers, are what's busted that bank, but his (Ryan's) "fix" would not reduce any benefits to any baby boomer. Instead, it would kill medicare for everyone after the baby boomers.

thegreekdog wrote:Agreed, but Medicare is also killed by the Affordable Care Act.

No, Medicare is not killed by the Affordable Care Act. Insurance plans must meet a maximum percent toward administration, some repayments are made less, and a panel will review things like a 96 year old smoker who needs a heart transplant. I happen to agree that spending excessive amounts to prolong someone who's already lived that long, is a bit abusive of funds now that we can't afford as much.

But, counter the treatment payment reductions and the "death panels" for Seniors with, the Affordable Care Act now pays more toward seniors' maintenance prescriptions than before, and many seniors end up saving thousands of dollars each year thanks to "Obamacare."

Reducing payments or denying some excessive costs is not at all the same as ending Medicare. Instead, the money is spent toward preventive health and meds for Seniors and for those who are not yet (but hopefully will eventually be) Seniors.

Last edited by stahrgazer on Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

stahrgazer wrote:Other multiple fact-checking websites proved that his company's ventures costing over 20,000 American jobs, (while netting him and his cohorts hundreds of millions at the expense of several companies who ended up footing the bills for as long as they could before bankrupting and closing) is true.

I was going to ask for sources on this. Then, I remembered that the election is over.

It was a good read, but I think all the political propaganda on the first page of the article may be a turn-off for many.If you want the meat of the story, just start about a third of the way down on Page 2.

Incidentally, while corporate raiders might call themselves "venture capitalists" I think it's important to note that legitimate venture capitalists who are not raider do exist.

stahrgazer wrote:So I'm pro-choice, not anti-life, while so-called pro-choicers are anti-choice much more than they are pro-life.

What does that mean? I'm also pro-choice politically and I'm pro-life personally (makes a bad Catholic). But you're using the incorrect term; I understand the point you're trying to make, but it's a little fallacious. And Ryan never said he would kill the mother to spare the child (at least that I heard or saw). Some congressional candidates said that, but not Ryan.

In any event, if you voted for Obama, you voted for a president and vice-president combination who would have direct government funding for abortions. That goes a little above and beyond pro-choice.

stahrgazer wrote:You make half my point: he didn't have numbers, which means he COULD NOT confirm that he could "create 12 million jobs" like his ads kept spouting. He also brought up numbers in the debates; it's just, he brought up several different percentages and told the audience to pick one (he used some same, some different numbers in various interviews, always telling audience to pick one but continuing to claim that the numbers meant he'd create 12 million jobs.)

Obama did have numbers and details, he's had them, it's just that to get there he wants to raise some taxes so the Republicans refuse his numbers.

Unless and until someone produces Obama's plan, numbers, and details (i.e. you), this is incorrect. I've linked to the president's financial plan on his campaign page: no numbers, no details. If you're going to criticize Romney, at least don't be a hypocrit about it.

stahrgazer wrote:1 year, then another year, not the ten years everyone else reveals.

Ten years? The standard is two years.

stahrgazer wrote:Other multiple fact-checking websites proved that his company's ventures costing over 20,000 American jobs, (while netting him and his cohorts hundreds of millions at the expense of several companies who ended up footing the bills for as long as they could before bankrupting and closing) is true.

Yes... and? The company he worked for costing jobs and Romney directly costing jobs are vastly different. The Obama campaign lied. And when it was called out, it continued to lie. Eventually the campaign stopped, but you're bringing it up again and it's not true.

stahrgazer wrote:No, Medicare is not killed by the Affordable Care Act. Insurance plans must meet a maximum percent toward administration, some repayments are made less, and a panel will review things like a 96 year old smoker who needs a heart transplant.

The Affordable Care Act partially or completely (I'm not entirely sure) defunds Medicare. I don't even understand what you're trying to explain (with the death panels and whatnot).

stahrgazer wrote:So I'm pro-choice, not anti-life, while so-called pro-choicers are anti-choice much more than they are pro-life.

What does that mean? I'm also pro-choice politically and I'm pro-life personally (makes a bad Catholic). But you're using the incorrect term; I understand the point you're trying to make, but it's a little fallacious. And Ryan never said he would kill the mother to spare the child (at least that I heard or saw). Some congressional candidates said that, but not Ryan.

It means, "pro life" is a catchy name but that's the fallacious name; anti-choice is more factual, so that's what I use.Ryan said it, in interviews I heard on radio and later looked up online. Sorry, didn't keep the site addy to send you to prove it but it was Ryan's lips moving and Ryan's voice answering, that he does not support abortion under any circumstances and believed the President should push for that, and that he'd push for that as v.p.

thegreekdog wrote:In any event, if you voted for Obama, you voted for a president and vice-president combination who would have direct government funding for abortions. That goes a little above and beyond pro-choice.

No, it does not. My dental insurance funds dentures, but I do not choose to get dentures. And at this point, the only direct funding is for CONTRACEPTION, not abortions...From a religious aspect, it may be unpalatable to some, but our nation is founded on a separation between church and state which means we do not mandate a religion but should also mean religions cannot mandate to the people unless the people choose to practice the religion. Like "dentures" "good Catholics" can choose not to partake of the contraception part of their insurance plans, since that goes against their religion; but those who do not wish to practice "no contraception for religious reasons" will be able to get the items covered no matter what insurance plans they use.

Still, if it were true - which it's not, but if it were true that Obamacare funds abortions, well, from a social/economic aspect, funding abortions is more viable than providing WIC, childcare, and other things.

thegreekdog wrote:Unless and until someone produces Obama's plan, numbers, and details (i.e. you), this is incorrect. I've linked to the president's financial plan on his campaign page: no numbers, no details. If you're going to criticize Romney, at least don't be a hypocrit about it.

The budget had the numbers, but will not be published until it is passed. I'm not being a hypocrite about criticizing Romney; he used numbers falsely and expected the majority of us would be too stupid to realize he was doing that. Thank God, he was wrong about American stupidity!

thegreekdog wrote:Ten years? The standard is two years.

Nope, 8-10 years is standard, as even his fellow Republicans note.

thegreekdog wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:Other multiple fact-checking websites proved that his company's ventures costing over 20,000 American jobs, (while netting him and his cohorts hundreds of millions at the expense of several companies who ended up footing the bills for as long as they could before bankrupting and closing) is true.

Yes... and? The company he worked for costing jobs and Romney directly costing jobs are vastly different. The Obama campaign lied. And when it was called out, it continued to lie. Eventually the campaign stopped, but you're bringing it up again and it's not true.

[/quote]

Wrong, it's not vastly different at all because it was Romney's brainchild and Romney was CEO while this stuff was going on, plus Romney directly benefited by hundreds of millions in "incentives" while leaving those companies stuck with the additional hundreds of millions in debt that forced them out.

thegreekdog wrote:The Affordable Care Act partially or completely (I'm not entirely sure) defunds Medicare. I don't even understand what you're trying to explain (with the death panels and whatnot).

Well, I'm entirely sure. The Affordable Care Act only "defunds" Medicare as follows: Hospitals, doctors, and administrators (insurers) will be paid a little less for some services that were being charged in excess of what seems reasonable based on average charges for those services; and reduces the excessive administrative costs (requires that more of the revenues go toward actual healthcare than the executives' pockets which saves the seniors and the government, some money). Then, those saved monies are deferred to help pay for major prescriptions for seniors which saves a majority of them more than the "defunding" cuts; and a little is also deferred for more preventive health care so that typical diseases and illnesses can be delayed or stopped before they end up costing excessive amounts when someone gets to "senior" status.

Romney is/was not a quick fix for the economy. That does not exist.Now he won't have to figure out and share his 5 mythical points to balance the budget, reduce unemployment and save the world fromgreedy, unethical and risky banking practices.

Romney/Ryan lost their home states 60% - 40% in the presidential vote,as well as all the densely populated northeast. Yes, it was a very close election, but that's how balloting has been since 2000.

oVo wrote:Romney is/was not a quick fix for the economy. That does not exist.Now he won't have to figure out and share his 5 mythical points to balance the budget, reduce unemployment and save the world fromgreedy, unethical and risky banking practices.

A quick fix does not exist and that is what Romney promised. If the people who voted for Obama voted for him because they knew an economic fix wouldn't be a quick one, I'd be shocked.

stahrgazer wrote:It means, "pro life" is a catchy name but that's the fallacious name; anti-choice is more factual, so that's what I use.Ryan said it, in interviews I heard on radio and later looked up online. Sorry, didn't keep the site addy to send you to prove it but it was Ryan's lips moving and Ryan's voice answering, that he does not support abortion under any circumstances and believed the President should push for that, and that he'd push for that as v.p.

Okay, I'll start using pro-abortion or pro-death or anti-life then. That is more accurate.

stahrgazer wrote:No, it does not. My dental insurance funds dentures, but I do not choose to get dentures. And at this point, the only direct funding is for CONTRACEPTION, not abortions...From a religious aspect, it may be unpalatable to some, but our nation is founded on a separation between church and state which means we do not mandate a religion but should also mean religions cannot mandate to the people unless the people choose to practice the religion. Like "dentures" "good Catholics" can choose not to partake of the contraception part of their insurance plans, since that goes against their religion; but those who do not wish to practice "no contraception for religious reasons" will be able to get the items covered no matter what insurance plans they use.

Still, if it were true - which it's not, but if it were true that Obamacare funds abortions, well, from a social/economic aspect, funding abortions is more viable than providing WIC, childcare, and other things.

Now, you made the point that there is no direct funding for abortions. Let's assume that's correct. Let's say Planned Parenthood collects $100, $40 of which is from the government and $60 of which is from some other revenue stream. The $60 it gets from some other revenue stream is used to fund abortions. The $40 is not. But the $60 is indirectly funding the abortions. So, it's a problem.

The issue of abortion is stupid. There is no risk that Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned; and if it is overturned it will be overturned for scientific reasons (i.e. a fetus can live outside the womb at an earlier date). But the Republicans and Democrats get their supporters all up in arms about this issue, which is essentially the creation of a false issue.

stahrgazer wrote:The budget had the numbers, but will not be published until it is passed. I'm not being a hypocrite about criticizing Romney; he used numbers falsely and expected the majority of us would be too stupid to realize he was doing that. Thank God, he was wrong about American stupidity!

Find me the details and numbers of the Obama tax and fiscal plans. They don't exist. All I ask of anyone is to be consistent with their criticisms. If you (and the media) is going to criticize Romney for lack of details, why was there no criticism of Obama?

stahrgazer wrote:Nope, 8-10 years is standard, as even his fellow Republicans note.

stahrgazer wrote:Wrong, it's not vastly different at all because it was Romney's brainchild and Romney was CEO while this stuff was going on, plus Romney directly benefited by hundreds of millions in "incentives" while leaving those companies stuck with the additional hundreds of millions in debt that forced them out.

First, this is vastly different than directly moving jobs overseas to cut costs of a company to make yourself more money. You don't seem to mind Planned Parenthood indirectly paying for abortions, but this bothers you?

Second, I'm not sure you understand venture capitalism or purchasing failing companies and the value that provides. Have you bothered to look up how many jobs Bain Capital and others of its ilk have created?

stahrgazer wrote:The Affordable Care Act only "defunds" Medicare as follows: Hospitals, doctors, and administrators (insurers) will be paid a little less for some services that were being charged in excess of what seems reasonable based on average charges for those services; and reduces the excessive administrative costs (requires that more of the revenues go toward actual healthcare than the executives' pockets which saves the seniors and the government, some money). Then, those saved monies are deferred to help pay for major prescriptions for seniors which saves a majority of them more than the "defunding" cuts; and a little is also deferred for more preventive health care so that typical diseases and illnesses can be delayed or stopped before they end up costing excessive amounts when someone gets to "senior" status.

It was a good read, but I think all the political propaganda on the first page of the article may be a turn-off for many.If you want the meat of the story, just start about a third of the way down on Page 2.

Incidentally, while corporate raiders might call themselves "venture capitalists" I think it's important to note that legitimate venture capitalists who are not raider do exist.

Like anything, it's the person/people. That includes judges, cops, lazy people, social workers, and soldiers. Some do the right thing, some do the wrong thing. In a world at a time when moral fabric is laughed at, religious values are being torn down and turned upside down, bailouts are the norm, and safety nets become "rights".....we are going to get a lot more of "bad" everything.

The incentive to do good, to struggle through the hard times, to pay off the mortgage or pay what you owe, or to try to do things yourself and not lay it on the government, are disappearing. We will have a lot less of "doing the right thing"

oVo wrote:Romney is/was not a quick fix for the economy. That does not exist.Now he won't have to figure out and share his 5 mythical points to balance the budget, reduce unemployment and save the world fromgreedy, unethical and risky banking practices.

Romney/Ryan lost their home states 60% - 40% in the presidential vote,as well as all the densely populated northeast. Yes, it was a very close election, but that's how balloting has been since 2000.

Massachussets and Wisconsin..... Have not went red in the last 30 years.

Romney was not a quick fix, but he wasn't intentionally trying to bankrupt the USA either

thegreekdog wrote:Okay, I'll start using pro-abortion or pro-death or anti-life then. That is more accurate.

Nope, you're being more inaccurate again. As I already said, someone can be pro-choice and not pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice (woman chooses, using whichever God she chooses to believe in to help make the choice) but not pro-abortion, and not anti-life. "Life" should include the woman's life, and to me, "life" means much more than breathing, it's about quality of life as well.

thegreekdog wrote: If you (and the media) is going to criticize Romney for lack of details, why was there no criticism of Obama?

Because Romney gave "details" by claiming that his plan would create 12 million new jobs, which cannot be true if he hadn't picked numbers - and out of his own words, he did not pick the numbers. If he doesn't know what the numbers need to be to create 12 million jobs, he should not have claimed "12 million new jobs," as part of his campaign. A slim majority of Americans saw thru his bogus claims.

Obama, on the other hand, said from the start, "this is going to be painful before it gets better, and I'll have to do some spending to hold us together until then," and that has been accurate. He has also continually, from the first, maintained that to work the deficit requires a balance between spending cuts and raised taxes. His plan to do that was to include incentives to businesses to help reduce unemployment by way of tax deductions for U.S. jobs created. In other words, any "penalties" would be toward those who want to create jobs anywhere but the US. No numbers on "jobs created" from his plan because it relies on businesses to wish to take advantage of the relief from the tax increases that so far, Congress has refused to budge on.

and again, OBAMA isn't the one who made the numbers a campaign claim, Romney is.

thegreekdog wrote: Now, you made the point that there is no direct funding for abortions. Let's assume that's correct. Let's say Planned Parenthood collects $100, $40 of which is from the government and $60 of which is from some other revenue stream. The $60 it gets from some other revenue stream is used to fund abortions. The $40 is not. But the $60 is indirectly funding the abortions. So, it's a problem.

Going with your idea of funding, if Cuban Americans send money to family still in Cuba, they're indirectly funding Communism and that's a problem, so we shouldn't let them send money to their families. I guess similarly, you think we shouldn't give money for milk for babies because the mother could get funds from other sources that she'll use for things that aren't milk which means you'd be indirectly funding those other things that SHE chooses, so that's all wrong.

By the way, in this part of Florida, Planned Parenthood doesn't do abortions; it's all medical screening like pap smears, less expensive contraception, or - when the contraception fails - pregnancy and family counseling.

thegreekdog wrote: If you (and the media) is going to criticize Romney for lack of details, why was there no criticism of Obama?

Because Romney gave "details" by claiming that his plan would create 12 million new jobs, which cannot be true if he hadn't picked numbers - and out of his own words, he did not pick the numbers. If he doesn't know what the numbers need to be to create 12 million jobs, he should not have claimed "12 million new jobs," as part of his campaign. A slim majority of Americans saw thru his bogus claims.

Obama, on the other hand, said from the start, "this is going to be painful before it gets better, and I'll have to do some spending to hold us together until then," and that has been accurate. He has also continually, from the first, maintained that to work the deficit requires a balance between spending cuts and raised taxes. His plan to do that was to include incentives to businesses to help reduce unemployment by way of tax deductions for U.S. jobs created. In other words, any "penalties" would be toward those who want to create jobs anywhere but the US. No numbers on "jobs created" from his plan because it relies on businesses to wish to take advantage of the relief from the tax increases that so far, Congress has refused to budge on.

and again, OBAMA isn't the one who made the numbers a campaign claim, Romney is.

thegreekdog wrote: Now, you made the point that there is no direct funding for abortions. Let's assume that's correct. Let's say Planned Parenthood collects $100, $40 of which is from the government and $60 of which is from some other revenue stream. The $60 it gets from some other revenue stream is used to fund abortions. The $40 is not. But the $60 is indirectly funding the abortions. So, it's a problem.

Going with your idea of funding, if Cuban Americans send money to family still in Cuba, they're indirectly funding Communism and that's a problem, so we shouldn't let them send money to their families. I guess similarly, you think we shouldn't give money for milk for babies because the mother could get funds from other sources that she'll use for things that aren't milk which means you'd be indirectly funding those other things that SHE chooses, so that's all wrong.

By the way, in this part of Florida, Planned Parenthood doesn't do abortions; it's all medical screening like pap smears, less expensive contraception, or - when the contraception fails - pregnancy and family counseling.

As for whether Roe v. Wade is at risk... I'm not willing to risk it.

I know you claim you aren't partisan, but this is as partisan as it gets. You're literally searching for excuses and you've backed off of your "Obama provided details" claim.

I have no problem if you voted for Obama if you have a good reason for doing so. You had a few good reasons and that should be enough, but the rest of these things are simply not true statements; it's like I'm reading an Obama campaign email (of which I received hundreds).

This may simply be because of the internet, and everyone wanting to share their opinion on everything, and the infotainment media we have nowadays, and less to do with the actual candidate. But it could also be Romney.

thegreekdog wrote:I know you claim you aren't partisan, but this is as partisan as it gets. You're literally searching for excuses and you've backed off of your "Obama provided details" claim.

I have no problem if you voted for Obama if you have a good reason for doing so. You had a few good reasons and that should be enough, but the rest of these things are simply not true statements; it's like I'm reading an Obama campaign email (of which I received hundreds).

I never stated anything about whether I'm partisan or non-partisan. What does the term mean to you? I'm somewhat conservative, but not when it means, "capitalism without ethics," and not when it means, "my religion trumps women's freedom." The turns my (Republican) party has taken sometimes disgust me. Some of what the Demo party does sometimes disgust me too.

Meanwhile, I'm not searching for excuses at all, I'm refuting your ridiculous twists of what I said as you come up with them.

I never said Obama published his numbers, I said he had them; and later I specified they were always available in his budget. I also maintained all through this that my problem with Romney is, Romney kept claiming a specific number of (12 million) jobs his "plan" would create, yet Romney never had the numbers to back that up. I believe Mitt's LIES, trying to claim a non-existent analysis confirms a specific number of jobs that would end unemployment in the U.S., are worse than your concern with not personally reviewing Obama's budgets. Obama's plan, however, is very simply stated: raise taxes on the types of businesses that are sending jobs overseas; ask those who can afford it to pay a little more taxes from their personal wealth because our country is hurting and so are so many of its people right now; and give tax incentives (deductions) to companies that are creating jobs within the United States because those jobs are needed to help us out of this bind.

I actually had hoped not to vote for Obama, mainly because I disliked his use of executive order to stop border patrols from prosecuting and returning, illegal aliens. My thinking is, if we need immigration law reforms, then reform them, but don't stop the folks from doing the jobs we pay them to do: enforce the laws as they exist.

Alas, this year, just like last pres campaign, my party picked a-holes.Prior election: McCain, mainly just too old and grumpy - albeit, a grumpy old man with a fairly nice history; but obviously going a tad senile for thinking we'd go for his vicious pitbull "appeal to teenie boppers and muscle-t men" Sarah vp pick - as well as needing to retire if he thought that his demeanor in the debates was appropriate (his reference to Obama as "That one!" really made me grind my teeth and while not many spoke of it, I do believe his nastiness back then was far worse than what we saw in this year's debates.)

This election's Romney, just too much the chameleon who'll say what he thinks he needs to say to win, whether he means it or not, whether it makes sense or not, and whether we see through it or not. He ran his campaign like his Bain Capital runs its ventures: make promises of all sorts to folks, when the real "promise" was always to himself and his investors. Called on facts that didn't add up frequently he frequently just ignored the questions. Essentially, a shyster; and one that was far too willing to go to the extreme right because that's where his investors wanted him, as shown by his extremist vp pick, Ryan, who thinks his religious principles should trump a woman's choice of which religious faith, if any, will guide her reproductive decisions. Maybe she shouldn't have sex, but not all women who get "unintentionally" pregnant have indiscriminate sex.

Bottom line, I voted for Obama, twice, because I believed he was the most candid and viable representative of the choices I was given - doesn't mean I wouldn't have preferred a better choice.

This may simply be because of the internet, and everyone wanting to share their opinion on everything, and the infotainment media we have nowadays, and less to do with the actual candidate. But it could also be Romney.

Two dozen business leaders, including the chief executives of major U.S. corporations such as Ford, IBM and Wal-Mart, will meet President Barack Obama to discuss how to control the federal deficit, said the White House on Monday.

Business executives invited to meet the president on Wednesday were Mark Bertolini of Aetna Inc, Ursula Burns of Xerox Corp, Kenneth Chenault of American Express Co, David Cote of Honeywell International Inc, Michael Duke of Wal-Mart Stores Inc, Jeffrey Immelt of General Electric Co, Andrew Liveris of Dow Chemical Co, Robert McDonald of Procter & Gamble Co, Alan Mulally of Ford Motor Co, Indra Nooyi of PepsiCo Inc, Ginni Rometty of IBM, and John Watson of Chevron Corp.